what exactly do the figures stand for?

do members reccomend it?

Ill do some research but want to get some opinions too

80 is for the percentage of carbs, 10 for protein and 10 for fat.

Its not too my liking too restrictive and i dont find it fun nor feel good on it, but theres quite a few around here that endorse it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/03/2010 09:26AM by powerlifer.

bit of a noob question but what are the main differences between carbs and calories?

I will research it but hope someone can sum it up more simply than a lengthy, figure-laden wikipedia entry

Protein, carbohydrates and fat are macronutrients, these give energy to our body which is defined by calories(unit of energy).

Alcohol also contains calories with 7 per gram.
Carbs are 4 calories per gram.
Proteins are 4 calories per gram.
Fats are 9 calories per gram.

Carb calories are the bodies main source of energy.

Protein is mostly used for rebuilding the body, but can be used as energy.

Fat is used in various parts of the body for protection, but then excess fat is used to store energy for when you body runs out of carbs.

Carbs, Proteins, and Fats are called macronutrients because your body needs them to live. Air and water are also macronutrients, but, of course, they contain no calories. Alcohol is not a macronutrient because you don't need any to live.

powerlifer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 80 is for the percentage of carbs, 10 for protein
> and 10 for fat.

the numbers are a guideline, but the description or further explanation says "At least 80% calories from carbs" "No MORE than 10% calories from protein or fat." So you could do 85% calories from carbs, 10% from protein, 5% from fat and still be following 80/10/10, just to further explain.

Utopian Life Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> powerlifer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 80 is for the percentage of carbs, 10 for
> protein
> > and 10 for fat.
>
> the numbers are a guideline, but the description
> or further explanation says "At least 80% calories
> from carbs" "No MORE than 10% calories from
> protein or fat." So you could do 85% calories
> from carbs, 10% from protein, 5% from fat and
> still be following 80/10/10, just to further
> explain.

Ahh yes i just read this today which was news to me, i thought 80/10/10 was always 80/10/10 but today i read of 90/5/5 or 955 which was news to me.

Yeah, and the 80/10/10 is a YEARLY average, so if it's avocado season or soemthing, and you want your avocadoes, have at it. And then cut back down the next week or whatever. Is the premise. I like the yearly average; seems so much more mindful of the variance of our diets.

WanderRA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what exactly do the figures stand for?
>
> do members reccomend it?
>
> Ill do some research but want to get some opinions
> too

The majority of members on this board, my perception, either follow or recommend some version of it. Of course, in a numbers game, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Is it recommended? Depends on who you talk to. You will find plenty of individual reports (I think calling it "anecdotes" are a bit insulting to those sharing their experiences, an individual report is one person talking about their experience, not telling a story). Some thrive on the diet; some do not. I realize that is not terribly helpful. But at the end of the day, how you as an individual will fare on this type of diet isn't something anyone can predict. Let us know.

Paul

p.s. while I don't personally either like or subscribe to 80-10-10, Dr. Fuhrman who I do follow does agree with the low-fat premise. Just remember "Dr" Doug Graham, a chiropractor, didn't invent low-fat. Best



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2010 04:57PM by pborst.

I didnt realise doug graham was just a chiropractor heres all this time i thought he was a proper med doctor, not insulting anyone whos a chiropractor as i love my chiro shes great and has helped my lower back and postural problems very well.

But seems abit of a scam to promote his literature by saying hes a doctor which to a degree he is but not in the sense most think of him.

I don't think Doug Graham keeps it a secret that he's a trained chiropractor. I don't even think a lot of people use "Dr" before his name.

Besides, being a medical doctor doesn't mean you have more vast knowledge of nutrition/sports than any other person. It's all individual. And Doug Graham has been low fat raw vegan for 30 or so years.

On another board I go, a woman always touts that she's getting her master's in nutrition. And she's on a high-fat, high-protein diet......very extremely low-carb, maybe 1,200 calories per day. That has little to do with nutrition and more to do with her weight management.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2010 05:53PM by Utopian Life.

I agree utopian thats something ive said on the start here including even the persons appearance shouldn't put you off as long as they offer sound knowledge.

I just feel in this case he should probably lose the dr tag as it seems abit misleading. It would be like someone selling nutritional supplements for e.g Dr Simpsons products when he is a doctor of accountancy lol.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2010 06:02PM by powerlifer.

ha!

Utopian Life Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think Doug Graham keeps it a secret that
> he's a trained chiropractor. I don't even think a
> lot of people use "Dr" before his name.

I think the important thing is he uses it. And agree he doesn't keep it a secret but he doesn't exactly advertise it either. On the front of the book he uses Dr. w/o the D.C. suffix. On the back side of the book, he does not disclose that is what his doctorate is in.

[www.nelsonsbooks.com]
[www.amazon.com]

> Besides, being a medical doctor doesn't mean you
> have more vast knowledge of nutrition/sports than
> any other person. It's all individual. And Doug
> Graham has been low fat raw vegan for 30 or so
> years.

I agree with that. All the same, there are differences between an MD and DC in ability to diagnose and treat disease.
>

Paul

No one with knowledge of how to use pre- and suffixes would put "dr." AND "D.O." because that's redundant. Other people besides Doug Graham who are chiropractors use "Dr" - it doesn't negate what he has to say, but I guess if you don't like what he has to say, it might matter (?). I honestly shrug. If he were a trained dog walker, I still agree with eating a low-fat diet.

Utopian Life Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No one with knowledge of how to use pre- and
> suffixes would put "dr." AND "D.O." because that's
> redundant.

It's not redundant at all. One is a title, the other the degree and status. Surely you are not oblivious to the fallacy of authority here.

>Other people besides Doug Graham who
> are chiropractors use "Dr" - it doesn't negate
> what he has to say, but I guess if you don't like
> what he has to say, it might matter (?).

absolutely it does not negate what he has to say. One wonders then why he doesn't say it in a more transparent manner. One of my favorite authors, Alan Goldhamer who also favors a low fat vegan diet happens to be a chiropractor. Difference is, he wears it proudly and publishes his data in peer reviewed journals. The Pleasure Trap is a wonderful book written by a psychologist and a chiropractor who proudly wear their credentials on the inside flap of the book in a transparent manner. [www.amazon.com]

>I honestly shrug. If he were a trained dog walker,
> I still agree with eating a low-fat diet.

If he were just a trained dog walker, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Would we?

Paul

Wow! Okay, maybe other people don't realize that you don't put "Dr. John Smith, M.D." You put one or the other. "John Smith, M.D." OR "Dr. John Smith." The incorrect way is "Dr. John Smith, M.D." I didn't realize that it wasn't a well-known thing.

If he were a dog walker, I'm sure we'd be having this conversation, or maybe a conversation about how his pinky finger looks "funny." Or maybe that he has some wrinkles, therefore, low-fat raw vegan causes wrinkles. LOL! who knows.

I consider a chiro a doctor, same as an M.D. or D.O., for their knowledge of biological systems. What gets me goat is the engineering PhD that insists on being called "Doctor." Grrrr . . .

Utopian Life Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow! Okay, maybe other people don't realize that
> you don't put "Dr. John Smith, M.D." You put one
> or the other. "John Smith, M.D." OR "Dr. John
> Smith." The incorrect way is "Dr. John Smith,
> M.D." I didn't realize that it wasn't a
> well-known thing.

I'm sure you would agree that looking at the book (80-10-10) in total both front and back, Doug doesn't mention anywhere he is a chiropractor and uses the title Dr. I'm sure you probably also agree that D.C. is more transparent than using "Doctor" in front your name. So, no he doesn't have to both on the cover as long as he is transparent on his credentials when he is using the title anywhere in the front or back of the book. Does he?

>
> If he were a dog walker, I'm sure we'd be having
> this conversation, or maybe a conversation about
> how his pinky finger looks "funny." Or maybe that
> he has some wrinkles, therefore, low-fat raw vegan
> causes wrinkles. LOL! who knows.

Cherie, he clearly is experienced and knowledgeable. No question. And he is authoritative. And perhaps that's your point. That should be enough.

And I agree. I just wish he'd said so in the first place. I had the same complaint of Linius Pauling when he was alive promoting Vitamin C when the man's degree bestowed no special knowledge. I don't have a problem with Graham's statements given his experience and knowledge which I agree are considerable. I just don't think he should embellish himself beyond what he is. And using Dr. without a presentation of credentials, in my view is misleading. Best to you, Cherie.

Paul

pborst Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------->
> And I agree. I just wish he'd said so in the
> first place. I had the same complaint of Linius
> Pauling when he was alive promoting Vitamin C when
> the man's degree bestowed no special knowledge.
> I don't have a problem with Graham's statements
> given his experience and knowledge which I agree
> are considerable. I just don't think he should
> embellish himself beyond what he is. And using
> Dr. without a presentation of credentials, in my
> view is misleading. Best to you, Cherie.
>
> Paul


-----
Best to you, too.

I just don't remember well enough if he mentions in the book that he is a chiropractor, but my impression is not that he keeps it a secret. I don't know, though, and too lazy to check right now. :p

WanderRA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what exactly do the figures stand for?
>
> do members reccomend it?
>
> Ill do some research but want to get some opinions
> too

I agree with much of what Graham has to say, and I applaud him for his views on the benefits of eating whole raw vegan foods. But I don't recommend the program as a long-term approach to a 100% raw vegan diet. Short-term, I think it could be beneficial. But in my view, the diet is overly restrictive of some very nutritious raw vegan foods.

I'm also concerned about those who may read 80-10-10 and become convinced that they can't be healthy on a raw vegan diet unless they follow Graham's program. After feeling great on 80-10-10 for a while, many people are unable to sustain the diet. Yet they remain opposed to adding other raw vegan foods that might actually be beneficial.

In my view, if people are able to sustain 80-10-10 and be healthy, then OK. If not, then it's also fine to try other foods or ratios of other foods that may be prohibited by 80-10-10. It doesn't necessarily mean a person is a failure, or isn't ready to "advance" or "evolve", or can't control emotions linked to food.

Here's a list of some specific complaints about 80-10-10:

#1: I think Dr. Graham's claims about raw vegan "fats" (in the form of nuts and seeds) are unfounded. I'd advise anyone reading 80-10-10 to actually read the references cited. Some of the major sources Graham uses for supporting his views are taken out of context. For example:

-Graham cites the findings of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to support his claims about adequate intakes of essential fatty acids, but he gives only the figures for the ALA (Omega 3): 1.1g - 1.6g ALA/day. Graham says that since a 1:1 ratio of ALA/LA is ideal, we can do well with only 1.1g - 1.6g LA /day (Omega 6) as well. He fails to inform his readers that the IOM also cites findings of 12g LA/day for women and 17g LA/day for men. In fact, these findings are not meant to be considered optimal intakes at all, but are actually based on median LA and ALA intakes in the US. (p. 116)


#2. Graham ignores all of the studies concluding that nuts and seeds are beneficial to health and linked to longevity. There are no studies included in 80-10-10 confirming anything to the contrary.

#3. I haven't yet found any mention in 80-10-10 that nuts and seeds are rich in essential minerals, which they are.

#4. Graham totally dismisses concerns about vitamins and minerals (p. 6).

#5. Graham opposes the consumption of seaweed. He doesn't like it, so he believes humans should not consume it (p. 247). (By that logic alone, we should not be suspicious of nuts and seeds.) Seaweed is the only reliable whole raw vegan source for iodine, a mineral essential for metabolism and healthy thyroid function. Many island people who grew up eating seaweed love the taste of it.

In conclusion, I'd say 80-10-10 contains a lot of valuable insight, but it's good to keep an open mind and be ready to change a little if/when the program isn't working as well as expected.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2010 04:17AM by suncloud.

suncloud,

Given that the SAD has a fat intake of 40% fat, it makes sense that the median intake would be 10 times (1.1g vs the median 12g of LA/day) more than you actually really need, since 4% fat is probably fine for healthy humans.

I am not sure it is necessary to extoll the benefits of fat (or nuts and seeds as a form of fat), given that most people overconsume fats and need to reduce their intake, rather than the opposite, where people would underconsume fats and need to increase their intake.

A typical person coming from SAD to 80/10/10 will probably start out with more fat than they need, and over time, reduce their fat intake.

There is only a small percentage of the land in the US that is iodine deficient, and thats somewhere in the midwest. For everyone else, their soil has enough iodine. Now whether or not people eat fresh raw vegetables, that's a different story.

Given how polluted the oceans are, and how many countries are dumping their heavy metals into the oceans, how can anyone propose people eat products that are grown in such a toxic environment?

Prana, you hit on a good point, and I should have noted that it's my personal belief that a diet high in fat is not optimal. In my view though, a raw vegan diet that includes a moderate quantity of whole raw organic nuts and seeds can be optimal.

I understand your concern that people may overconsume nuts and seeds. As a result, they won't receive all the potential benefits from a raw food diet. I would agree.

About the ALA and LA, I don't think it's quite as simple as what you've said; but in any case, Graham left out the information that didn't conform to his point of view. In my opinion, that's a loss for the reader.

It's my understanding that because of the variability of iodine content in soils, and because much of our food is imported from regions where soils are deficient in iodine, and because industrial farming, flooding, and other environmental factors are depleting the topsoils in "developed" countries, we don't have data to confirm that eating fruits and vegetables other than seaweed will supply sufficient iodine. I will be open to a reference (something more than an opinion) that disputes that though.

It's best to eat seaweeds that are tested for heavy metals and found safe. So far, that's most of them. To date, only hijiki and some kelp supplements have been found to contain dangerous levels of heavy metals.

I hope we wise up and stop hurting our oceans. Whether we like it or not, our own fate is ultimately connected.

Question for Utopian Life -

In 80-10-10, Dr. Graham says his menus average 80-10-10 by the end of each week (p. 171). I didn't see a reference to a "yearly" average. Does Dr. Graham refer to this somewhere else?

From my point of view, a yearly average for 80-10-10 might be somewhat helpful, as long as we can keep moving the end-of-the-year goalpost! (Just kidding, kind of)

I have read that anything upto or over 50% of the US are deficient in iodine and suffer from hypothyroid.

Even if the soil contained iodine fruits an vegetables dont contain enough iodine to even stave off the poor RDA which is only to prevent goiter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2010 09:40AM by powerlifer.

suncloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Question for Utopian Life -
>
> In 80-10-10, Dr. Graham says his menus average
> 80-10-10 by the end of each week (p. 171). I
> didn't see a reference to a "yearly" average.
> Does Dr. Graham refer to this somewhere else?
>
> From my point of view, a yearly average for
> 80-10-10 might be somewhat helpful, as long as we
> can keep moving the end-of-the-year goalpost!
> (Just kidding, kind of)


Hey, I have reaad on a forum that he said it was a yearly average, that he answered someone's question in that manner; and a couple people have recounted and repeated that he said that as well. I don't know if it's in the book, I haven't reaad it in a long time, I'm sorry!!

Do you know "many people" who were unable to sustain 80-10-10? I only know of a couple who decided not to do it anymore longterm.

I know of a few personally that were having problems with 80/10/10 long term but then again i know of another few personally that were having problems with a "normal" raw diet long term.

Most of the common denominator out of the 3/6 was that they were low on iodine and were having low thyroid problems such as hair loss, fatigue, cold body.

2 of them good friends of mine, are now back on a raw vegan diet but with including seaweeds and one had low vitamin D problems.

Re: Iodine--powerlifer's right, Prana. You are citing outdated data; the majority of Americans are deficient in iodine(and other trace minerals) because of intensive monocropping and because of the influx of receptor competing halides in our food and water. We are headed for another Dustbowl, in fact. Also, I'm in the Midwest, what was referred to as the "Goiter Belt" in the 1920s when catastrophic iodine deficiency was first noted by clinicians. Now, as then, we produce a lot of the country's food--a lot--so if our soil becomes iodine depleted, so will the diet of anyone eating produce from our[very large] region of the country.

We have to be honest about the fact that Dr. Graham declines to address such things in 80/10/10. To me there's nothing really devient about eating an occasional serving of seaweed to correct what could be a life-threatening mineral deficiency, and Dr. Graham cannot possibly find this objectionable, as a chiro. What is the point, after, all--following his ideas to the letter, or keeping oneself as healthy as possible with raw plant foods? If they happen to not be the same thing in an individual's case, I suspect Dr. Graham would recommend the latter. He is reported to be a good guy

The irony is that iodine was added to table salt to reduce the wide deficiency. Now that people are being told to avoid salt, the number of people with deficiency is starting to rise.

I believe iodine used to be added to bread also back in the olden days, not sure why they took it out as bread for most was an easy way to ensure iodine requirements were meant. Alot don't consume salt.

Good post tamukha on that note i guess selenium and other minerals are an issue also.